Suppose the Feds leaglize sports betting.....

Scotty S

EOG Addicted
Lets turn the debate around. Suppose the Feds legalize sports betting.
If they're in charge it will be a disaster i.e. big rake, lousy payoffs etc. They would or could then really tighten up on betting off shore making it risky for both layers and players. There are things they can do. The locals would thrive in this scenario which is a good thing IMO.

The only way it could possibly be viable would be for the Feds to back off, leave it to private companys and simply regulate/tax the business like Nevada does. There is just too much $$$ for the Feds to dummy up and let the business world handle it.

If it's ever leaglized it might not be the way we envision it. There will be some problems for us.
 

The General

Another Day, Another Dollar
I agree whole-heartedly Scotty. The US Government would fuk it up very bad if in their control. They do about everything they get involved with and this kinda money would have the fools drooling with stupidity.
 
Scotty S said:
Lets turn the debate around. Suppose the Feds legalize sports betting.
If they're in charge it will be a disaster i.e. big rake, lousy payoffs etc. They would or could then really tighten up on betting off shore making it risky for both layers and players. There are things they can do. The locals would thrive in this scenario which is a good thing IMO.
Oregon sports betting lottery, real players don't touch it.
 

ZZ CREAM

EOG Master
Scotty S said:
Lets turn the debate around. Suppose the Feds legalize sports betting.
If they're in charge it will be a disaster i.e. big rake, lousy payoffs etc. They would or could then really tighten up on betting off shore making it risky for both layers and players. There are things they can do. The locals would thrive in this scenario which is a good thing IMO.

The only way it could possibly be viable would be for the Feds to back off, leave it to private companys and simply regulate/tax the business like Nevada does. There is just too much $$$ for the Feds to dummy up and let the business world handle it.

If it's ever leaglized it might not be the way we envision it. There will be some problems for us.
Too bad Scotty, if you had run The Sands you would have been qualified to be 'Gambling Czar'!
 

Scotty S

EOG Addicted
ZZ, IMO there are already a few gambling zars, although not in the same class of gov't appointed "zars". Those guys are zars in their own minds only.
The gambling zars I'm talking about are the handful of layers and players, already out there, who bet and take monster sums. The guys who actually run things without the self marketing and fluff. You and I would be blown away by the dealings of these guys.

ZZ, you've mentioned the Sands before. Did you hang out there?
 
Anyone EVER convicted of a Felony is out of this biz..... Dude that would clean out the house ... and I would love it.
 
I doubt the government would take over control. They haven't done it in Veags, so why would they do it then? They would set up the rules and regulations and have their "free enterpise" take over.


But from what I have seen, the internet is going to be changed pretty drastially, so maybe all the restrictions we face now with moving money around will be gone.

That however might make the US govt want to take control and get back some measure of control.

Obviously having a Leroy's or a Terribles on every street corner across the US would be much better for most guys than sending money offshore.

Peace of mind, and a guarantee of getting paid is worth 5 cents vig anyday of the week.

Besides if there truly were cmpetiton then maybe some reduced vig places would in fact show up. Veags pretty much has the market cornered, but even some of them have their reduced vig days. So not hard to think that if it became nation wide that monopoly would be lost.
 
Agreed Want

Regulation would kill reduced juice ....

Just rumors now ...still ten years away ... IMO
 
But from what I have seen, the internet is going to be changed pretty drastially, so maybe all the restrictions we face now with moving money around will be gone.


yes gambling on the internet will change.......but for the worse.....come on you guys need to stop living in neverland.....(you too jc aka wtorulingisasavior)

if anything the gov. will make it so hard to fund internet accounts it will not be worth it.....
 
The US is LOSING control of the internet. Therefore their "governing" how money is transfered using it will be lessened.


Unless they start citing Homeland security or something, Iahve to think that low level deposits/withdrawels will be onnoticed.

Surely the card companies will more than liekly open back up to sending money to these places once they hon't have to worry about BigBrother watchng over them.
 
Surely the card companies will more than liekly open back up to sending money to these places once they hon't have to worry about BigBrother watchng over them.


cc companies for the most part are done with funding internet gambling accounts...not because of big brother but because of chargebacks..


i disagree that the gov is losing control over internet gambling...
 

JC

EOG Veteran
Chargebacks???

They have never been a significant problem with sportsbooks. The credit card companies in the past have always charged the books a much higher fee and used the chargeback myth to justify it.

Pornography has a much higher chargeback rate than gambling. But for years, the credit card industry considered them all "adult" for the purpose of evaluating their risks. So sportsbooks paid fees on par with the pornography risks.
 
Agree with the above post. Not that I frequent the porn site. But I have to think that they have more chargebacks a hell of a lot more than books would. Simply because gamblers have more ethics than porn fiends
 

dirty

EOG Master
Here is a Article .....The US is on the Verge of losing control over the internet....The UN, god Help us, is about to take over



<!--StartFragment --> [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Breaking America's grip on the net[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Kieren McCarthy
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Thursday October 6, 2005
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
Guardian

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.[/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole internet.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Human rights[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do."[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's future. The internet will never be the same again.[/font]

<CENTER>[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited ; Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005[/font]</CENTER>
 
They have never been a significant problem with sportsbooks. The credit card companies in the past have always charged the books a much higher fee and used the chargeback myth to justify it.


ok......whatever the credit card companies use as an excuse not to fund sportsbook accounts...



i know most of you like to view the wto ruling as something that will keep the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT from controlling internet gambling (particularly sports betting)...

but i dont...........as i have said many times before....the real detriment to offshore sportsbetting imo is...the u.s. making it so difficult to send/receive funds for offshore sports book accounts......
 
Michael Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services committee, said restricting offshore gambling was necessary to thwart Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. "Internet gambling services (are) a haven for money launderers," Oxley said during the floor debate. "Offshore Internet gambling sites can be a haven for terrorists to launder money".


the above will be used again and again......
 

JC

EOG Veteran
Oxley is a liar. There is no evidence to support his statement that offshore gambling is a haven for terrorist money laundering or any kind of money laundering. Well, I guess they could be, but I could have an offshore t-shirt shop or some other tourism attraction that is a front. So in that sense, anything COULD be.

Not only can they not produce ANY evidence of offshore gambling being used for money laundering, there has over the years been many occurences of onshore land based casinos being used for money laundering.

Legitimate offshore casinos DO NOT TAKE CASH, land based casinos do. Where is there a gretaer opportunity to launder money? But are they calling for the closure of land based casinos? No. How can an offshore casino launder money if its already going through the banking system? Not only that, any financial transaction at an offshore casino leaves a big electronic footprint and audit trail.


Here's a perfect example of money laundering through Nevada properties.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-18-Tue-2003/business/22606139.html

They allow people to deposit cash with foreign agents in Japan. They show up at the Nevada casino and are given chips, they play a little, and then cash out. The casino gives them a check for their entire account.

The first thing they should do if they are worried about money laundering is stop allowing Nevada casinos to take deposits abroad.

We all know the real reasons, and its not because they care about money laundering.
 
jc............sir you of all people should know firsthand of what the united states government can and will do when it comes to sportsbetting.....

yet, you seem oblivious to the facts.......you are constantly saying the wto ruling will be the savior of offshore gambling............you remind me of someone who touches the iron to see if its hot.....



having been an example of the united states "overzealous" prosecution....you seem to think they have boundries they cant cross......yet the majority of people who have come under fire from the government for gambling activities know better than to say the united states cant........
 

The General

Another Day, Another Dollar
My brother owns a couple Oil change facilities which are very profitable. That business could be used as a money laundering tool as well. The suggestion from our Govt here is poppycock.
 

JC

EOG Veteran
I said Antigua won, that is correct.

The US has publicly stated that they intend to comply. How we don't know.

Why do you have such a hard on against the WTO? At least Antigua is trying to do something. At least I tried to do something.

There are remedies that Antigua can take if the US does not comply. I will not discuss them here. Despite what some people think they are not limited to Antigua raising tariffs on US imports.

You seem to have the attitude that the US is going to do what it wants to do when it wants to do it, no matter what the law says. And you may be right, but I am not going to sit here and argue that point with you.
 

BADLIEUTENANT

EOG Enthusiast
dimeplayersonly said:
to each his own..gl


Dimeplayer,JC,General & others

No matter which of you gentleman are correct as we all try to predict the future, your posts are relevant & add important content to any gaming forum .Thank you for voicing your opinions . Be safe :+thumbs-2
 
Top